Actually, you said: "While I disagree with Horatio's argument that we cannot derive a logical conclusion based on prior actions", which is why I made the comment about conclusions.

I stand corrected. What I meant (and should have said) is that I disagree that we cannot derive a logical inference from such actions. Which is a position I stand by. I agree that such things are not conclusive. They are, however, evidence that may eventually point towards a conclusion. I believe we disagree on this point, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

Quote:

No, I don't think that's quite right - the implication that evidence exists due to the absence of a statement is troubling, I think in nearly all cases.

And I will agree that by itself, evidence of absence is a logical fallacy. My corollary to that, however, is that past behavior can be analyzed and applied to the situation at hand. My initial foray into this discussion was based upon this, where I said: ""A company not reporting numbers is not definitive proof of failure, but is a reasonable point of evidence that releasing these numbers might cause market volatility if, in other circumstances, they do report successful numbers."

To put that in more informal terms: if, in the past, p ⇒ q & ¬p ⇒ ¬q, then today, ¬p ⋄ ¬q (note: the ⋄ symbol is a less-used symbol for "it is possible")

My position here is not that we can glean an absolute certainty, even with the inclusion of past data. It is simply that such examination can be considered a point of evidence. We can disagree on this, as well, but I think it's also unfair to say that my argument is of the same caliber as the "absence of evidence" fallacy.

(complete side-note: Horatio, I'm actually having a great time discussing this with you. It's been a while since I actually had to bust out formal modal symbols or obscure logical fallacies in any discussion. Having a chance to converse in disagreement, while also maintaining a good degree of composure on both sides, is amazingly cathartic. Our positions may be intractable in the end, but I'm going to come out of this with nothing but positive feelings towards the discussion.

Secondly, and more importantly, it's worth considering WHY I chose not to state conclusively whether Microsoft adhered to this: because it's almost impossible to show their history. You say "They only "maybe" give out a few milestone numbers about new products and then are silent afterwards." Prove it.

What the official Microsoft numbers of copies of windows 7 sold so far? How about vista? XP media center edition? Any XP edition? ME? 98? 95? How many mice have they sold so far? How about keyboards? Mice? How about xbox360 controllers? How many copies of visual studio?

I'll be happy to say I'm wrong if you can find me one single press release telling us exact number of these sold in total. The problem is they tell you milestones (x sold within first 6 months) or give vague numbers that mean nothing (X sold 12% more then version 11). They don't give total sold. they also don't give numbers outside of milestones excepy maybe xbox but even that I'm not 100% sure of.

My position here is not that we can glean an absolute certainty, even with the inclusion of past data. It is simply that such examination can be considered a point of evidence. We can disagree on this, as well, but I think it's also unfair to say that my argument is of the same caliber as the "absence of evidence" fallacy.

Sure, we have ¬p ⋄ ¬q, but possibility is a call to investigate, not information (evidence) on its own. We cannot say that q exists or not, given the information we have.

In the case at hand however, we don't even have p. Microsoft sometimes, perhaps even often releases numbers for successes, however this is not universally true, so you have to try a Bayesian argument, but that will be probabilistic, but closer to actual evidence.

Off topic: show

Quote:

complete side-note: Horatio, I'm actually having a great time discussing this with you. It's been a while since I actually had to bust out formal modal symbols or obscure logical fallacies in any discussion. Having a chance to converse in disagreement, while also maintaining a good degree of composure on both sides, is amazingly cathartic. Our positions may be intractable in the end, but I'm going to come out of this with nothing but positive feelings towards the discussion.

I too am enjoying this discussion. The theory of debate and argument is always something I've been interested in. Plus, I get to use the new offtopic tag

Sure, we have ¬p ⋄ ¬q, but possibility is a call to investigate, not information (evidence) on its own. We cannot say that q exists or not, given the information we have.

In the case at hand however, we don't even have p. Microsoft sometimes, perhaps even often releases numbers for successes, however this is not universally true, so you have to try a Bayesian argument, but that will be probabilistic, but closer to actual evidence.

It is probabilistic, no doubt about that. I think the difference is that we are simply defining 'evidence' differently for the purposes of this discussion. Evidence, as I use it, need not be absolute in order to be considered evidence. Evidence is, to me, something that simply makes something more or less likely to be true. I am using Microsoft merely because it was the initial source, but my argument is more universal in nature (as is yours, of course). I think we can look at the actions of any company and assess whether or not their past actions make their current actions more or less likely to be one thing or another.

Their actions need not be 100% rigid. If there is a trend to announce success milestones, and a trend not to announce less positive numbers (which I do not claim to be true in the case of Microsoft, as I do not have evidence to support this), then I think their current actions make a conformity therewith more or less likely.

It is probabilistic, no doubt about that. I think the difference is that we are simply defining 'evidence' differently for the purposes of this discussion. Evidence, as I use it, need not be absolute in order to be considered evidence. Evidence is, to me, something that simply makes something more or less likely to be true.

To me evidence is a set of facts upon which one can base a concrete argument, in this case, we can't take as fact the existence of bad numbers, but only the possibility of bad numbers, which I think we can agree is far less interesting. We cannot take as fact in our argument that because MS didn't release Surface numbers that the numbers are poor. It's not about being absolute, but it's about understanding what the evidence indeed is, in this case a probabilistic possibility, rather than hard truth. From here, the argument can continue and maybe put numbers on the probability (applying Bayes' Theorem, most likely).

And now that me and Horatio have had a wonderful discussion over the various understandings of what evidence is, exploring the two differing theory of what 'evidence' means in a logical debate, and the various schools of thought on the matter, we can now get this discussion back on track and get back to debating whose dick is bigger (as filtered through respective technology bandwagons).

Secondly, and more importantly, it's worth considering WHY I chose not to state conclusively whether Microsoft adhered to this: because it's almost impossible to show their history. You say "They only "maybe" give out a few milestone numbers about new products and then are silent afterwards." Prove it.

What the official Microsoft numbers of copies of windows 7 sold so far? How about vista? XP media center edition? Any XP edition? ME? 98? 95? How many mice have they sold so far? How about keyboards? Mice? How about xbox360 controllers? How many copies of visual studio?

I'll be happy to say I'm wrong if you can find me one single press release telling us exact number of these sold in total. The problem is they tell you milestones (x sold within first 6 months) or give vague numbers that mean nothing (X sold 12% more then version 11). They don't give total sold. they also don't give numbers outside of milestones excepy maybe xbox but even that I'm not 100% sure of.

and to go further on xbox--while they do give out numbers for the console, you WON'T find numbers for controllers, software, even xbox-live numbers are sketchy--they don't give out the ratio of silver to gold, just total. They sometimes give out numbers for some of their titles like Halo selling more than 5 mil, but nothing on-going.

Lets look at reality here. You made a comment about how it's impossible to prove so. You ignored 20 years of history of what Microsoft reports. You ignore the fact their own finical statement are largely void of any actual numbers.

Now that I gave some proof, you claim that this conversation "sail directly" over my head even though you where the one who asked me to give proof. Proof I may add you never once responded to and instead choose to make snide little comments rather then even acknowledge it

And now that me and Horatio have had a wonderful discussion over the various understandings of what evidence is, exploring the two differing theory of what 'evidence' means in a logical debate, and the various schools of thought on the matter, we can now get this discussion back on track and get back to debating whose dick is bigger (as filtered through respective technology bandwagons).

Your exchange was great to follow. Thanks to you and horatio for debate well done!

LordDaMan and Echohead2: The conversation continues to sail over your head because you fail to understand that neither Horatio or I of were actually arguing over Microsoft. We were having a discussion about logical fallacies and what constitutes 'evidence'. References to Microsoft were preceded with the word "if"- it was used as an easy reference. I never argued that Microsoft's history DID imply one thing or another. I argued that IF it did, we could analyze that.

So again, you completely missed the point. References to Microsoft were for the purposes of a hypothetical. I could have put Acme Anvils in the same place and it would have zero effect on what the conversation was actually about, and your idea of "counter-example" misses the point that these were only in reference to the wider discussion of logic.

Neither side can, I think, prove conclusively that Microsoft always does or always does not release milestone numbers when a product is deemed a success. People can provide examples of behavior as they wish. This would have zero bearing on my argument, as Horatio and I were discussing the larger question of what should be considered as a coherent argument, and what would constitute as evidence. My point was that bringing in such examples could be used as evidence. Horatio disagreed. We had a discussion about it. You're now arguing against hypothetical evidence.

LordDaMan and Echohead2: The conversation continues to sail over your head because you fail to understand that neither Horatio or I of were actually arguing over Microsoft. We were having a discussion about logical fallacies and what constitutes 'evidence'. References to Microsoft were preceded with the word "if"- it was used as an easy reference. I never argued that Microsoft's history DID imply one thing or another. I argued that IF it did, we could analyze that.

So again, you completely missed the point. References to Microsoft were for the purposes of a hypothetical. I could have put Acme Anvils in the same place and it would have zero effect on what the conversation was actually about, and your idea of "counter-example" misses the point that these were only in reference to the wider discussion of logic.

Neither side can, I think, prove conclusively that Microsoft always does or always does not release milestone numbers when a product is deemed a success. People can provide examples of behavior as they wish. This would have zero bearing on my argument, as Horatio and I were discussing the larger question of what should be considered as a coherent argument, and what would constitute as evidence. My point was that bringing in such examples could be used as evidence. Horatio disagreed. We had a discussion about it. You're now arguing against hypothetical evidence.

So yes, you entirely missed the point of the discussion.

Again--we got it. MS is just an example. We both know that. We both know that it only takes one example to disprove an absolute statement. Again--you do realize that though?

So again, you completely missed the point. References to Microsoft were for the purposes of a hypothetical. I could have put Acme Anvils in the same place and it would have zero effect on what the conversation was actually about, and your idea of "counter-example" misses the point that these were only in reference to the wider discussion of logic.

So again, you completely missed the point. References to Microsoft were for the purposes of a hypothetical. I could have put Acme Anvils in the same place and it would have zero effect on what the conversation was actually about, and your idea of "counter-example" misses the point that these were only in reference to the wider discussion of logic.

Again--we got it. MS is just an example. We both know that. We both know that it only takes one example to disprove an absolute statement. Again--you do realize that though?

I wouldn't bother. He knows this. He's just pissy because I pointed out his example was bad and decided to make up a story about what I was arguing rather then actually argue against me

Your argument is about Microsoft. Mine was not.

Here, let's remove Microsoft.

"If some company, let's say Company X, has a history of doing something, I believe we can look at that and consider such actions as evidence." "COMPANY X DOESN'T DO THAT!!!"

Your retort has zero to do with mine. It doesn't address my argument. It doesn't refute it. It's a counter-argument to a claim I didn't make. You're responding, in specific, to a claim that was universal in scope. Okay, so let's pretend you can prove that Microsoft doesn't do that. What about every other company? Again, my argument is that we can consider past behavior and compare it to current actions for ANY company, and it wouldn't be a fallacy to consider it. How does saying that ONE company doesn't do that, in any way, shape, or form, address the rest of the argument?

This is the issue. You're replying against an argument I did not make. It's almost precisely the definition of a straw man. At absolute best, it's a non sequitor. Did I say that Microsoft always released numbers when a product was successful? No. So why is the only thrust of your argument that Microsoft doesn't do that?

Quite simply, you missed the point. It's fine. If you want to have that discussion, of whether or not Microsoft only releases milestones on successes, and not on failures, there might actually be a worthwhile discussion to be had. But pretending that it has any bearing on what I was talking about is logically unsound.

Again--we got it. MS is just an example. We both know that. We both know that it only takes one example to disprove an absolute statement. Again--you do realize that though?

Okay, here's what you're not getting: my argument also applies in the negative. So if you can show that Microsoft DOES NOT do that, I believe that you can use that as evidence in considering their current actions. Here is my argument, for the third time: "A company not reporting numbers is not definitive proof of failure, but is a reasonable point of evidence that releasing these numbers might cause market volatility if, in other circumstances, they do report successful numbers."

What this means is that if you can show that in other circumstances, they report both successes and failures, then I ALSO think that that is a reasonable point of evidence. So basically, you either agree with my argument that we can consider past actions (whatever those actions might be), or you don't. Your argument is that Microsoft hasn't released numbers on many products that are successful. Okay. Cool. If you think that this is in any way a point of evidence, you are AGREEING with my assertion that past actions are important.

I respect you, and I've agreed with you many times in the past. But you've simply missed what I was arguing about.

Either you believe that past actions are important in looking at current behavior, and you're agreeing with me (even if your other argument is that Microsoft has failed to release the numbers on many successful products before), or you don't think looking at the past behavior of a company can be used to analyze current behavior.

That's it. Your secondary argument (about what Microsoft did or did not do) has no bearing on my argument.

My argument was that Microsoft was a bad example.. So why don't you stop making up what I said and go with what I really did say?

Quote:

Here, let's remove Microsoft.

"If some company, let's say Company X, has a history of doing something, I believe we can look at that and consider such actions as evidence." "COMPANY X DOESN'T DO THAT!!!"

Your retort has zero to do with mine. It doesn't address my argument. It doesn't refute it. It's a counter-argument to a claim I didn't make. You're responding, in specific, to a claim that was universal in scope. Okay, so let's pretend you can prove that Microsoft doesn't do that. What about every other company? Again, my argument is that we can consider past behavior and compare it to current actions for ANY company, and it wouldn't be a fallacy to consider it. How does saying that ONE company doesn't do that, in any way, shape, or form, address the rest of the argument?

I pointed out your exmaple was wrong. For someone who's acts like he's so well versed in logic you seem to have a very hard time understanding that using a bad example doesn't help your argument. You are so determined to say I didn't understand what you are talking about that you can't even grasp something as simple as I was trying to help you

Quote:

This is the issue. You're replying against an argument I did not make. It's almost precisely the definition of a straw man. At absolute best, it's a non sequitor. Did I say that Microsoft always released numbers when a product was successful? No. So why is the only thrust of your argument that Microsoft doesn't do that

I seem to recall you asking me to prove my point. It's interesting how you have completely and utterly ignored that comment by yourself in order to go after me

Quote:

Quite simply, you missed the point. It's fine. If you want to have that discussion, of whether or not Microsoft only releases milestones on successes, and not on failures, there might actually be a worthwhile discussion to be had. But pretending that it has any bearing on what I was talking about is logically unsound.

This is rather rich considering the fact you ignored my point about it being a bad example. It's even more interesting that you went as far as to ask me to prove myself and then quickly ignored those posts because it didn't your narrative

My argument was that Microsoft was a bad example.. So why don't you stop making up what I said and go with what I really did say?

No, what you actually said was: "So no, under no circumstance is this argument about no numbers must mean bad numbers is justified". Except, of course, that that wasn't what I argued, so as I stated, you're arguing against a straw man. I didn't claim that no numbers mean bad numbers. I claimed that past history could be used to gauge whether it is more or less likely that the numbers were bad. If you wish to retract, and state that you now understand that I didn't make the argument you implied I did, please feel free to. It would move this conversation along.

But you implied I made an argument I didn't. Hence, me stating that this conversation went over your head.

Quote:

I pointed out your exmaple was wrong. For someone who's acts like he's so well versed in logic you seem to have a very hard time understanding that using a bad example doesn't help your argument. You are so determined to say I didn't understand what you are talking about that you can't even grasp something as simple as I was trying to help you

A hypothetical is not an example. If I state, "If it rained today, I would have brought an umbrella" and your response is "well, it didn't rain today", it still has no bearing on what I said. An example is something taken for to be representative of a whole. A hypothetical is something assumed for the sake of argument. Disproving the hypothetical has absolutely zero to do with the underlying argument. In other words, I might know that it didn't rain today. That doesn't disprove whether or not I would have brought an umbrella. It's a fairly simple distinction. If I state "I brought an umbrella because it was raining", and you state "it didn't rain today" then there is a logical connection.

Quote:

I seem to recall you asking me to prove my point. It's interesting how you have completely and utterly ignored that comment by yourself in order to go after me

I did ask you to prove your point. You made a bold claim, I asked you to back it up with data. Asking people to support their arguments isn't "going after them". It's asking them to support their assertions.

Quote:

This is rather rich considering the fact you ignored my point about it being a bad example. It's even more interesting that you went as far as to ask me to prove myself and then quickly ignored those posts because it didn't your narrative

Again,example and hypotheticals are not the same thing. That you think they are is kinda the whole problem here. You're missing the point because you're so hung up on disproving a hypothetical as though it was a declarative statement. You, not I, made the declarative statement and if you're going to make the claim that Microsoft's behavior does or does not prove something...yeah, I'm going to ask you to back that up. I don't think it's easy to do. If someone makes the claim that their past history DID prove that they only release numbers when a product, I'd ask THEM to prove it, too. As I stated, if you want to have that discussion, great. But bring the proof. Otherwise, it doesn't actually contribute anything of value to the discussion.

No, what you actually said was: "So no, under no circumstance is this argument about no numbers must mean bad numbers is justified". Except, of course, that that wasn't what I argued, so as I stated, you're arguing against a straw man. I didn't claim that no numbers mean bad numbers. I claimed that past history could be used to gauge whether it is more or less likely that the numbers were bad. If you wish to retract, and state that you now understand that I didn't make the argument you implied I did, please feel free to. It would move this conversation along.

How about we take it in context instead of editing out the rest of it? The argument about micrsoft isn't justified. An argument I may add I never cliamed you said.

Quote:

But you implied I made an argument I didn't. Hence, me stating that this conversation went over your head.

In otherowrds you made up some argument rather then taking what I said at face value. that despite numerous times telling you what I was talking about you instead choose to ignore all of that to continue with a fantasy argument that took place in your head

Quote:

A hypothetical is not an example. If I state, "If it rained today, I would have brought an umbrella" and your response is "well, it didn't rain today", it still has no bearing on what I said. An example is something taken for to be representative of a whole. A hypothetical is something assumed for the sake of argument. Disproving the hypothetical has absolutely zero to do with the underlying argument. In other words, I might know that it didn't rain today. That doesn't disprove whether or not I would have brought an umbrella. It's a fairly simple distinction. If I state "I brought an umbrella because it was raining", and you state "it didn't rain today" then there is a logical connection.

Except of course you claimed it was an example.

Quote:

I did ask you to prove your point. You made a bold claim, I asked you to back it up with data. Asking people to support their arguments isn't "going after them". It's asking them to support their assertions.

So in otherwords you asked me for proof and then said based on that same proof, that I didn't understand what you where talking about.

Of course you dediced to edit reality to make that comment about something else.

Quote:

Again,example and hypotheticals are not the same thing. That you think they are is kinda the whole problem here.

I'm simply repeating what you claimed it was. Well at least that version before you decided to prove me worng by.. arguing against yourself

Quote:

You're missing the point because you're so hung up on disproving a hypothetical as though it was a declarative statement.

I disproved your self proclaimed example.

Quote:

You, not I, made the declarative statement and if you're going to make the claim that Microsoft's behavior does or does not prove something...yeah, I'm going to ask you to back that up. I don't think it's easy to do. If someone makes the claim that their past history DID prove that they only release numbers when a product, I'd ask THEM to prove it, too. As I stated, if you want to have that discussion, great. But bring the proof. Otherwise, it doesn't actually contribute anything of value to the discussion.

I already brought the proof. You simply choose to ignore it because it didn't fit your theory

Frankly I'm done with this. You are being a pompus holier then thou jackass who clearly is more interested in proving me wrong rather then being honest.

How about we take it in context instead of editing out the rest of it? The argument about micrsoft isn't justified. An argument I may add I never cliamed you said.

So you were responding to someone else's argument by quoting me and responding to me, but you weren't implying that I was making that argument. Okay, then.

Quote:

I already brought the proof. You simply choose to ignore it because it didn't fit your theory

Here. Right here. You're literally accusing me of having a theory about Microsoft's past performance in the very same post you claimed that you've never claimed anything about my theory. Which is precisely what I am accusing you of. You know the one thing you might have wanted to ask me before you went through all this, considering you're now claiming that you weren't assuming what my position was? You might've wanted to ask whether or not I believe that Microsoft's history indicates that we can draw the conclusion that Surface sales are bad.

The answer would be no. So maybe you should have figured that out before you went-off half-cocked. I'm actually on the side of people that don't think that Microsoft saying nothing can be concluded to be a part of poor sales. I'd actually be on your side if you weren't making your side look so completely irrational. So...yeah. I think it is best if you go.

Again--we got it. MS is just an example. We both know that. We both know that it only takes one example to disprove an absolute statement. Again--you do realize that though?

Okay, here's what you're not getting: my argument also applies in the negative. So if you can show that Microsoft DOES NOT do that, I believe that you can use that as evidence in considering their current actions. Here is my argument, for the third time: "A company not reporting numbers is not definitive proof of failure, but is a reasonable point of evidence that releasing these numbers might cause market volatility if, in other circumstances, they do report successful numbers."

well fuck--ANYTHING can cause market volatility--that part is a red herring.

However, you had coutner examples for this. Apple for instance. No one is doubting that the Mini sold well, and yet they have been quite on it, when they normally crow. So unless you want to come out and say mini numbers suck...you are wrong.

Quote:

So basically, you either agree with my argument that we can consider past actions (whatever those actions might be), or you don't.

I don't.

Quote:

I respect you, and I've agreed with you many times in the past. But you've simply missed what I was arguing about.

I appreciate that--but I didn't miss it. I might not have communicated that very well (as if that would be the first time!), partly I am going to say I have become very busy at work lately (which actually is a really good thing and very excited lately about it, which is a great improvement--but that takes time away from other "important" things like the BF)...so I have been in a hurry and posting half-assed.

But yes, I got it--you propose that if they have a history of reporting success and then release a new product and don't crow...THEN you can say it is bad news. If they have no history, you can't say that. I disagree with that also. Apple stopped reporting individual computer lines while sales were going up. They bragged about iPod like crazy, but then kind of dried up about it (nothing about specific things like nano). Companies are varied. Sometimes they brag, sometimes they don't. YOu can't take a lack of bragging to mean bad. Certainly that can be often true, but enough exceptions exist to disprove it (even with companies with a history of doing it).

Quote:

you don't think looking at the past behavior of a company can be used to analyze current behavior.

I don't.

Quote:

That's it. Your secondary argument (about what Microsoft did or did not do) has no bearing on my argument.

Well I think it does. Somestimes they brag, sometimes they don't. And it seems that either way a product can be doing well or poorly.

So basically, you either agree with my argument that we can consider past actions (whatever those actions might be), or you don't.

I don't.

So you agree with Horatio. So...if you don't agree that Microsoft's past actions are useful fodder for discussion...why would you bring up their past actions as proof of your position?

to prove you wrong.

I've re-read this a couple of times, and I had to edit my response in order to truly express my incredulity.

- My assertion is that we can use a companies past behavior as evidence. - Therefore, to "prove me wrong", you must prove that past behavior is not evidence. - To "prove me wrong", the proof you've offered to show that past behavior is not evidence...is Microsoft's past behavior.

Looks like 7-inch and cheap W8 tablets may be coming, since they relaxed the resolution requirements.

I don't really understand that move. 1024*x is basically no-name generic garbage in Android right now. In a years time, its going to be almost non-existent in the developed world because the difference in price between that shitty low res displays and better midrange ones will be almost negligible. How does (eventually) allowing crappy displays long after they stop making sense help the platform?

It might possibly mean (hopefully) an April launch of a small 7" Surface or Nokia Tablet.

If the 7" tablets don't get released until 2014, then, yes, it's a pointless gesture.

Take this for what its worth, but Isupply says that the Nexus 7's quality screen cost $3 more then the Kindle Fire's low res screen 9 months ago. $3. A year later thats probably going to be even less. Once the factories and production lines are going and yields are up, it doesn't really cost more to print more pixels per inch. Is it really worth letting Dells and HPs flood the market with mediocre Windows hardware to save a buck or two a device?

Looks like 7-inch and cheap W8 tablets may be coming, since they relaxed the resolution requirements.

I don't really understand that move. 1024*x is basically no-name generic garbage in Android right now. In a years time, its going to be almost non-existent in the developed world because the difference in price between that shitty low res displays and better midrange ones will be almost negligible. How does (eventually) allowing crappy displays long after they stop making sense help the platform?

Is there something stopping OEM's from using the higher rez displays that other 7 inchers will be sporting?No.

It might possibly mean (hopefully) an April launch of a small 7" Surface or Nokia Tablet.

If the 7" tablets don't get released until 2014, then, yes, it's a pointless gesture.

Take this for what its worth, but Isupply says that the Nexus 7's quality screen cost $3 more then the Kindle Fire's low res screen 9 months ago. $3. A year later thats probably going to be even less. Once the factories and production lines are going and yields are up, it doesn't really cost more to print more pixels per inch. Is it really worth letting Dells and HPs flood the market with mediocre Windows hardware to save a buck or two a device?

If this were Apple I would say that they do this so that the "Retina iPad mini" isn't telegraphed to consumers since a pixel doubled iPad mini is still, technically, rendering to a 1024x768 point display, even if pixel doubling makes the real resolution much higher.

This being Microsoft I think it's them being 1 year late to the party.

If this were Apple I would say that they do this so that the "Retina iPad mini" isn't telegraphed to consumers since a pixel doubled iPad mini is still, technically, rendering to a 1024x768 point display, even if pixel doubling makes the real resolution much higher.

And of course the Mini up-sells the full size model, so deliberately giving it (well thought out and carefully implemented) limitations that don't too seriously hurt the user experience makes sense.

The opposite seems likely for MS: their partners don't care at all about the platform, so if they opt for a low res screen, its just going to be to try and squeeze every last cent out of the device to make up for the license fees they have to pay to MS that their Android models don't incur. Theres no up-sell in that case. Just a cheaper looking device.

YoungHov wrote:

This seems more like simply covering as many bases as possible.

A race to the bottom against Android devices that have little or no license fees for the OS is not a base you want to cover. You'll lose every time. Minimum hardware standards were imposed to guard against this. They should not be back-sliding now, no matter how much their hardware partners insist they need to.

A race to the bottom against Android devices that have little or no license fees for the OS is not a base you want to cover. You'll lose every time. Minimum hardware standards were imposed to guard against this. They should not be back-sliding now, no matter how much their hardware partners insist they need to.

This can't be quite right. Microsoft has (as far as I can tell) managed to negotiate non-zero fees for Android licenses already from many players. I believe they've negotiated in the 10 dollar range and their own OS only costs 20. True, 10 bucks can be huge, here, but the 10 is pretty close to profit for MS anyway. At any rate, I don't believe they are always competing against "free".

Moreover, the pricing for Windows on the desktop wasn't all that tiered as there were only two "models" of the US that sold in any given era and that fee wasn't altered because the device was cheaper. So, why would it be all that different here? From what I remember about Win mobile pricing, it isn't.

They have little to lose, themselves, by allowing others to go downmarket.

Moreover, the biggest problem Detroit ever gave itself was when it gave away the low end to the Japanese. The Lexus division head must thank the Big Three of the '70s every day for that call.

It's nice to talk about being lofty and staying out of the horrid race for the bottom, but if you're getting your butt kicked from the top and the bottom, you don't have the luxury of saying "I won't compete here."

Android has never cared about what the platform was; it's happy to run anywyere. MS wishes Apple was its biggest problem. But, given that Android is, they had better get serious about meeting it wherever it is.